City Desk ~ An insider’s view of the policies and politics of Colorado Springs city government

Archive for the 'Lawsuit' Category

« Previous Entries

ACLU threatened to sue city in 2001 over ordinance prohibiting ex-felons from holding public office

January 3rd, 2013, 10:13 am by

The candidacy of Gary Flakes has prompted City Clerk Sarah Johnson to research whether ex-felons can serve on the City Council.

“We need to do a lot of research,” Johnson said Wednesday. “I’ve been working with the City Attorney’s Office on that very question, and we are currently researching the answers.”

The issue came up in Colorado Springs before when the Rev. Promise Lee was considering a council bid in late 2000, early 2001.

Lee was convicted of second-degree murder in the 1974 killing of a Fort Carson soldier. Lee was 15 at the time of the crime.

When the council passed an ordinance prohibiting ex-felons from serving on council or even running, the ACLU of Colorado stepped in.

“Eleven years ago, the ACLU of Colorado was prepared to sue on behalf of the Rev. Promise Lee, who was the target of an ordinance passed to prevent ex-felons from running for or serving on the city council,” Mark Silverstein, legal director for the ACLU of Colorado, said in an email Thursday.

At the time, Silverstein sent a letter to former City Attorney Patricia Kelley asking for a repeal of the ordinance.

“The council repealed the ordinance,” Silverstein said.

Johnson, who is relatively new to Colorado Springs, said the city is looking “through all the files to see if the question has come up” and how the city responded.

“Of course, there’s a lot of case law out there on this particular issue,” she said. “Now, I don’t know necessarily in the city. I can’t answer that question. But nationally, it is an issue.”

Silverstein said the law hasn’t changed.

“The law is the same as it was when I wrote the letter in 2001,” he said. “Mr. Flakes has a right to be a candidate, and the voters have a right to consider whether to vote for him.”

Here is the full, unedited text of the ACLU’s 2001 letter:

January 3, 2001

Patricia Kelly

City Attorney

City of Colorado Springs

30 S. Nevada Ave Suite 101

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901

Dear Ms. Kelly:

I am writing to you about a recently-enacted ordinance, Ordinance 00-175, which purports to make citizens ineligible to serve on the Colorado Springs City Council if they have been convicted of a felony at any time in the past.

The newly-enacted ordinance adds the following section to the Colorado Springs Election Code:

5.1.105: ELECTORS ELIGIBLE TO HOLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE

Every registered elector 25 years of age or older on the date of election who has been a resident of Colorado Springs for one year immediately preceding election, is a citizen of the United States, maintains a residence within the District for election as a District councilmember and within the City for election as Mayor or at-large councilmember, and has not been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction may be a candidate and hold office.

As this section is written, it forbids individuals from holding municipal office if they have ever been convicted of a felony, even if the sentence has already been served and even if the convicted person’s right to vote has been restored.

I write on behalf of the Reverend Promise Lee, who intends to run for a seat on the Colorado Springs city council in the upcoming election this April.   Rev. Lee was convicted of a felony in the early 1970s, for a crime that occurred when he was fifteen years old.   Since his release from prison, Rev. Lee has become a community leader and an outspoken advocate on matters of public concern.  The newly-enacted ordinance, however, would prevent Rev. Lee from serving on the city council if he were elected.

I am writing to ask that the City of Colorado Springs take immediate steps to repeal the newly- enacted ordinance.

The Colorado Supreme Court has characterized the right to run for public office as a fundamental right.    Cowan v. City of Aspen, 181 Colo. 343, 349, 509 P.2d 1269, 1272 (1973).   “This right may not be infringed upon by invidious discriminatory disqualifications.”  Id.   When the government takes away from the voters the ability to decide who shall be qualified for public office, the government’s reasons must be “real, clear and compelling.”  Id., 509 P.2d at 1273.

I have reviewed the documents that the city council considered last November when it enacted the ordinance that purports to bar Rev. Lee’s candidacy.  In those documents, I do not find any reason for barring ex-offenders from office, let alone a reason that is sufficiently compelling to override Rev. Lee’s fundamental right to participate fully in the democratic political process.

Unlike other states, Colorado does not permanently disenfranchise ex-offenders from voting, nor does it prohibit ex-offenders from holding public office.   The Colorado Constitution makes it clear that convicted felons are barred from voting only during the time that they are confined in prison as a result of their conviction.  Upon release from prison, ex-offenders are restored to their full rights of citizenship.   Nor are ex-offenders barred from holding public office in Colorado, unless they have been convicted of one of the five specific crimes listed in Article XII, Section 4 of the state constitution.  See Colo. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 4 (listing embezzlement of public funds; bribery, perjury, and subornation of bribery or perjury).

Indeed, it is the “strong public policy” of the State of Colorado “to aid ex-offenders in their rehabilitation to society and to insure that they are not discriminated against solely because they, at one time, were convicted of crimes.”  Watson v. Cronin, 384 F. Supp. 652 (D. Colo. 1974) (interpreting C.R.S. § 24-5-101).

It appears that the newly-enacted ordinance was drafted and passed with full knowledge that Rev. Lee was interested in running for a seat on the city council and with full knowledge that the new ordinance would bar his candidacy.   Indeed, an article published in the Colorado Springs Gazette on November 10, 2000, states that the Colorado Springs City Attorney believed that Rev. Lee’s past felony conviction might prevent his candidacy.  The article was published before the newly-enacted ordinance was even presented to the city council.

The newly-enacted ordinance violates the charter of the City of Colorado Springs, which clearly sets out the qualifications for city council and the mayor’s office:

Qualifications.  No person shall be eligible to the office of Mayor or Councilmember unless he or she is a citizen of the United States, at least twenty-five (25) years of age, and shall have been for one (1) year immediately preceding such election a resident of the City of Colorado Springs.  (1909; 1987).

City of Colorado Springs Charter, Section 2-20.  It is clear that the charter sets out only three criteria for eligibility: citizenship, age, and residency.     Rev. Lee is a United States citizen; he is over twenty-five years old; and he has been a resident of Colorado Springs for more than one year.  Under the charter, Rev. Lee is eligible to be elected and to serve as a member of the city council.

On behalf of Rev. Lee, I ask that the Colorado Springs City Council take immediate steps — at its next scheduled meeting on January 9, 2001– to effect the repeal of the newly-enacted Section 5.1.105 of the city’s election code.

Sincerely,

Mark Silverstein,

Legal Director, ACLU of Colorado

 

 

Posted in: City Council • Elections • Lawsuit • People • • • • | 2 Comments »

Holidays may delay no-solicitation zone discussions

December 19th, 2012, 5:16 pm by

What should Colorado Springs do next in light of a judge’s injunction on the no-solicitation zone?

The Gazette asked Mayor Steve Bach and City Council members to answer the question Wednesday.

Only City Councilman Bernie Herpin responded.

“Before I can comment on the status of the lawsuit and implementation of the no solicitation ordinance, I would need to hear from our City Attorney.  However, we do have an ‘aggressive solicitation’ ordinance on the books that would cover most of the more aggressive panhandling anywhere in the city.  It, like all our laws, becomes a matter of enforcement,” Herpin said in an email.

“I, also, do not understand the comments from the judge about our lack of discussion on other issues with the content of the no solicitation ordinance,” Herpin added. “I recall that we talked extensively about no charity solicitation, specifically about the Salvation Army bell ringers; street performers; sandwich boards; Girl Scouts; and other impacts of the ordinance besides just panhandling.”

City Attorney Chris Melcher weighed in Wednesday afternoon, saying the city had already issued a statement on the matter.

“The release stated that the city would carefully review the written opinion when released next week, consult with legal counsel, and make a decision after a thoughtful review and discussion,” Melcher said in an email.

Melcher also said that Herpin was “absolutely correct” that “there were substantial and detailed discussions in public council sessions that discussed solicitation by charitable organizations,” including the Salvation Army and the Girl Scouts, and solicitation by musicians and other street performers.

“Until we have the judge’s written decision, we cannot be sure what the court meant by those comments or whether the court was simply mistaken in its review of the record,” Melcher said. “The entire City Council proceedings on the ordinance were entered into the record by the city at the hearing, and the record before the court will reflect those discussions. ”

Melcher said it’s unlikely city leaders will be able to discuss “possible next steps” until the next council meeting Jan. 7 because of the holidays.

 

Posted in: City Administration • City Council • Lawsuit • Meetings • People • Public Safety • Tourism • • • • • | Post a Comment »

Inventor: Deal puts technology at Drake in jeopardy

December 13th, 2012, 11:50 am by

David Neumann

The secret agreement between the city of Colorado Springs and the Sierra Club may put a controversial emissions control technology being installed at the downtown power plant in jeopardy.

“My understanding is that recent secret negotiations with the Sierra Club conducted by the City Attorney have resulted in an agreement which partially or wholly suspends our contract,” businessman David Neumann, who invented the sulfur dioxide scrubbers, said in an email to the Colorado Springs Utilities Board.

” I appeal to you to have a full and open discussion with the community before you proceed to endorse the dealings of the City Attorney.  These dealings by the City Attorney may appear to many of the Colorado Springs Utilities’ citizen-owners and ratepayers as truly egregious acts,” he wrote.

Here is the full text of Neumann’s email:

Dear Colorado Springs Utilities Boardmember:

As you know NSG with its 55 employees has a contract to provide emissions control capability for the Martin Drake powerplant in compliance with EPA requirements. Already $60 million of rate payer money has been committed or spent.  NSG stands ready to continue performance of that contract and provide the City with one of the cleanest coal plants in the country.

My understanding is that recent secret negotiations with the Sierra Club conducted by the City Attorney have resulted in an agreement which partially or wholly suspends our contract.   I appeal to you to have a full and open discussion with the community before you proceed to endorse the dealings of the City Attorney.  These dealings by the City Attorney may appear to many of the Colorado Springs Utilities’ citizen-owners and ratepayers as truly egregious acts.

While it is clearly not my place to judge the City Attorney’s actions, I do believe that NSG, as a vendor of Colorado Springs Utilities, has a right to expect full and open discussions, with substantial Community input, before actions are taken that may adversely affect assets of Colorado Springs Utilities, the Community and NSG.

Thanks for considering this,

 

David K. Neumann, CEO

Neumann Systems Group, Inc.

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Council • Lawsuit • Meetings • Transparency • • • | 5 Comments »

Neumann: Cox doesn’t discriminate against women

July 16th, 2012, 12:47 pm by

Laura Neumann

Chief of Staff Laura Neumann is defending Steve Cox, the mayor’s chief of economic vitality and innovation, against allegations of sexual and gender discrimination by Terri Velasquez in a federal civil rights lawsuit.

“Steve Cox is not the man you read about last week,” Neumann wrote in an email submitted as a letter to the editor.

“He is one of the most highly respected City officials bar none, a man of great integrity, character, and compassion.  He was my immediate mentor and continues to be a supportive, invaluable resource to me and to many.  Let us not allow his good name and three decades worth of service be tarnished by a disgruntled former employee,” Neumann wrote.

“Ms. Velasquez is welcome to cry foul as is her right.  But, not on behalf of all professional women over 40 who work for the City of Colorado Springs,” she wrote.

Neumann provided a copy of the letter to me and noted that I had “respectfully” given her the opportunity to comment before the story was published.

“At the time, I did not feel compelled to comment on a pending case of a former City employee.  However, after reading it and realizing the impact the article had on our Chief of Economic Vitality; someone I consider to be a good man and an accomplished professional, I now feel I should make my perspective known,” Neumann said in the email.

Here is the full text of Neumann’s letter to the editor:

I feel compelled to write a response in regard to the allegations about Steve Cox’s discrimination against women, particularly those over the age of 40 who are in executive level City positions.  I find it shameful that someone would think it a “good story” to publish such incendiary remarks about a City official who served such a critical leadership role in the successful management of the worst crisis in our City’s history.  When that story hit, I believe Steve had logged over 20 days of intense and demanding work that well exceeded 12 hours a day.  Not only did I cringe when I realized those personal attacks were in the paper, I was mortified when I realized they were on the front page.

With only seven months of City tenure, I have not met Ms. Velasquez nor do I know the intimate details leading up to her dismissal.  But, what I do know is this.  Not only do I think her termination was unrelated to her age and sex; I believe that City management has proved just the opposite of sexual and age discrimination with the hiring of several key executives in the past year under Mayor Bach’s direction.

Having worked closely with Steve Cox since my appointment as Chief of Staff, I will say there has never been a moment in time that I was dismissed or treated any less than a professional peer and equal.  Bear in mind, of all who could have been hired in a role to replace him, my lack of municipal government experience could have made me a prime target if such a culture existed within City management. Instead, I found him a patient, willing, and an accessible resource who openly displayed deference to my position when the situation warranted.

Most telling to all who read this is how Steve and I led, followed, and worked together during the Waldo Canyon fire crisis.  Not a day passed where Chiefs, Directors, and Managers did not spend hours crammed in Police Chief Carey’s conference room together managing ever-changing critical information while making crucial policy decisions.  Some contributors were brand new to the team (2 weeks); others were 30+ years.  Nearly half were women.  Some days, Steve led our session.  Others, I did.  Every day, multiple times, he or I would get interrupted with an urgent matter, be pulled away for hours, and simply return to that Policy Room, catch up and assume the role that was necessary at the time (leader, follower, strategic contributor, sometimes contrarian).  No ego.  No subservience.  Just incredible leadership synergy at its finest.  When we were not in that room together, our conversations would be less than 60 seconds and usually start with “I need you to…” or “You got this…?” or “Are you good?”  Nothing more was needed as the respect and intuitive crisis management connection were ever present.

So, please know that Steve Cox is not the man you read about last week.  He is one of the most highly respected City officials bar none, a man of great integrity, character, and compassion.  He was my immediate mentor and continues to be a supportive, invaluable resource to me and to many.  Let us not allow his good name and three decades worth of service be tarnished by a disgruntled former employee.  Ms. Velasquez is welcome to cry foul as is her right.  But, not on behalf of all professional women over 40 who work for the City of Colorado Springs.

Posted in: City Administration • City employees • Lawsuit • • • | 12 Comments »

Oops! Law firm names county in Velasquez lawsuit

July 12th, 2012, 8:42 am by

County commissioners

The law firm representing fired city employee Terri Velasquez made a glaring error in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed Monday against the city.

The firm included the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners in its complaint.

The complaint states that Velasquez, by and through her attorneys, “allege and assert claims against the City of Colorado Springs, by and through its governing entity, the Board of County Commissioners.”

The Gazette asked the law firm, Evergreen-based Frank and Finger, PC, about the error on Wednesday.

Attorney William Finger was out of the office, and no one from the law firm replied Wednesday.

Paralegal Elaine Gosnell responded via email Thursday morning.

“We are filing a corrected complaint today.  Any error should not effect the lawsuit,” she wrote.

Um, Ms. Gosnell, actually, any error should not “affect” the lawsuit.

 

Posted in: Etc. • Lawsuit • • • | 6 Comments »

Man who mistakenly thought he won football bet against bus driver wanted taxpayers to pay up

June 14th, 2012, 2:58 pm by

They say anybody can sue anyone for anything.

It’s true — and here’s proof:

A man who mistakenly thought he won a football pool organized by a city bus driver wanted Colorado Springs taxpayers to give him the money when the driver refused to pay up.

Don Miller said he gave a bus driver named “Ron” $10 on Feb. 3 to participate in a Super Bowl XLVI football pool.

“I had (a score of) 9 for NY and (a score of) 3 for New England at the end of the first quarter,” Miller wrote in a claim filed with the city.

“New York had 9. That was my number,” he wrote.

Just one problem: the score at the end of the first quarter was 9-0, which means Miller didn’t win squat.

The city denied the claim Feb. 14, saying that all personnel operating or maintaining city buses are employees of McDonald Transit, which is “the contractor through which transit services are supplied to the City of Colorado Springs.”

Jerry Triolo, general manager of Colorado Springs Transit Management Inc. and vice president of McDonald Transit, said Miller “apparently” didn’t understand how the football pool was won.

“This gentleman thought that just because he had one number, he wins the quarter,” Triolo said. “He was claiming (he was owed) whatever that quarter amount was, and I’m estimating that it was $250. Of course, the driver was like, ‘No, but you didn’t win.’”

Triolo said his company doesn’t approve of betting on city buses or during work hours.

“The driver was written up for that. It became a big deal because it’s not tolerated whatsoever,” he said.

“But the big issue was that (Miller)  didn’t know apparently how this game works, and he thought he only had to have one number to win it,” Triolo said.

Miller could not be reached for comment. The City Attorney’s Office redacted his contact information from the claim.

Posted in: Lawsuit • People • Transit • | Post a Comment »

Will McEvoy sue? Bring it on, councilman says

May 2nd, 2012, 8:05 am by

Tim Leigh

Councilman Tim Leigh had prepared a statement for yesterday’s special City Council meeting in which he was going to call for the immediate removal of the Memorial board and canceling the $1.15 million separation package for CEO Dr. Larry McEvoy.

Leigh said he conveyed the gist of his message in closed executive session and “did not feel compelled to kick the horse as it laid in its dung.”

Nevertheless, he sent the statement out in his electronic newsletter.

What follows is an explanation and then the statement.

Dear Friend,

The following is the message I was prepared to deliver during the public session of the Specially-called City Council Meeting to discuss the management of Memorial Hospital.  I conveyed the gist of this message in the closed session and therefore, did not feel compelled to kick the horse as it laid in its dung.  That being said, I wish to congratulate the Council for doing the right thing.

Yesterday,

– We removed the Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees with a unanimous vote.

– We stalled the McEvoy pay-out until it can be fully scrutinized by the city attorney’s office for its legality.

– We (the City Council and citizen’s of Colorado Springs) affirmed the high value we place on the Enterprise and its employees.

It’s now time to remove acrimony from the conversation and focus on the job at hand – caring for the sick and needy, and the smooth transition of the Enterprise by way of lease to the University of Colorado Health (UCH).

As you discuss this issue around the water cooler over the next few days and weeks, please convey that I fully endorse the transfer and please, when called upon to do so, endorse and support the transition with your vote and messaging to your friends.

With Warm Regards,

Tim

The Message

I stand firmly against the McEvoy Exit Bonus proposed by the Memorial Hospital Board.

Furthermore, I have no confidence in the Memorial Board’s ability to make any unbiased decisions which are not favorable to the discarded McEvoy plan and its’ proponents.  You may recall the McEvoy plan was the proposed 100% leveraged buy-out of the hospital with no personal financial guarantees, which has been correctly usurped by the hoped-for lease with UCH.

I have 2 calls for action today:

1)      I’m calling for a cancellation of the agreement to pay Dr. McEvoy’s Exit Bonus, but, with a willingness to honor the agreement we, (Council), were told was signed when he was hired; that being a 6 month’s salary-severance-package.

However, I’m not sure severance is an issue, because according to what we’ve been told, Dr. McEvoy did not quit, and was not fired.  That being said, this appears to be a mere case of a hen feathering his nest.

The threat has been made that if we cancel the questionable salary-severance-package with Dr. McEvoy, we open ourselves to a lawsuit.  I say, bring-it-on.  I’d love to try this action in El Paso County, in front of a jury of peers.

2)      I’m calling for the immediate removal of the Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees.

When the McEvoy plan was the topic of community conversation, we were told we, (the citizens), couldn’t strip too much cash from the enterprise because it would do irreparable harm.  The money crunchers did their analysis and determined that if we, (the city), took $5,000,000 up front plus $1,000,000 a year thereafter we’d be OK; – but barely.  [By way of comparison, (on those 2 metrics alone), the UCH proposed lease will provide something like $75 million up front plus something like $6 ½ million thereafter, for a generation!]

On the basis of these 2 metrics alone, we would have to question this board’s ability to understand the financial condition of the enterprise.  Then, adding this salary fiasco to the brew, we’re certainly within our rights to question this board’s ability to manage the enterprise.

Dr. McEvoy told us last August that by December 2011, we’d be in receivership, with the bond holder’s management company in charge of the hospital.  Subsequently, based on Dr. McEvoy’s financial forecast, we were told the Board had implemented substantial cost cutting measures; measures like less photo-copy paper (really?); the elimination of employee appreciation benefits like free ice-tea or plastic silverware, and the elimination of free-holiday dinners for those called away from their families to work Thanksgiving and Christmas.

And most importantly, the elimination of pay increases for any of the line or staff.  I’m not aware of any planned pay increases for rank & file employees this year, but as we all know and in spite of these cost saving measures, the CEO’s pay was increased this year by over $100,000.

Yet, now in spite of these claimed draconian times, the Board found sufficient excess within their budget to give away over $1,000,000 to the CEO on his way out the door.  I find this odorous and repugnant.

By the way, if not given away, it’s possible that, that, million dollars could be used for some other, better use, like the acquisition of the much anticipated Surgical Robot, a birth center pulse oxometer or more nurses.

We’ve been told that this deal is irreversible.  I’m calling the BS card on that.  I’ve been involved in business and contracts for over 30 years and a deal, while it may sound like a deal, is never a deal until the check is cashed.

This deal is most likely reversible and I’m calling on my co-councilors to stand up and do the right thing.

We’ve been told that the proposed Exit Bonus is “industry standard”.  If that is the case, 1) who said we had to comply with an industry standard; how about complying with a community standard; and 2) when was the industry standard articulated? – Before the crash in 2008?  It’s a different world since the crash, and industry standards may no longer be the relevant measure with which to award outrageous exit bonuses.

I was elected to represent the best interests of the citizens; not to promote the bureaucratic infrastructure.  To that end, I feel compelled to stand on the principal of fairness and do the right thing.  While awarding the outrageous exit bonus may be technically correct, it doesn’t make it the right thing.

In life, you can be technically correct but wrong.  This is a glaring example.

Let’s demonstrate to our highly valued Memorial Hospital Employees and nearly 500,000 citizens of Colorado Springs we can make a right decision.

Let’s cancel the proposed McEvoy exit bonus agreement and remove the board showing the public they can trust their elected officials to do the right thing.  Now, there’s change I can believe in.

Posted in: City Council • City employees • Health care • Lawsuit • Meetings • • • | 10 Comments »

Council ‘overstepped’ legal authority, attorney says

February 29th, 2012, 8:25 am by

This is an email from City Attorney Chris Melcher, provided to The Gazette through Chief Communications Officer Cindy Aubrey.

The email speaks for itself:

“I wanted to provide further information regarding the Opinion of the City Attorney’s Office issued February 10, 2012, entitled “Roles and Responsibilities of City Council and Mayor with Regard to Appropriations and Administration of Appropriated Funds”.  My office consulted with the several outside attorneys and other municipal government experts on the opinion, and carefully reviewed the proper roles of Council (the legislative branch) and the Mayor (the executive branch) in the appropriations and budget process under the City Charter and our new form of government.  In our research and discussions with outside attorneys, there was a consensus that the Colorado Supreme Court has clearly ruled many times on the respective roles of the legislative branch and the executive branch in appropriations and budget implementation.  These opinions of the Supreme Court have defined the respective roles of the legislative and the executive branch – and describe in detail the limitations on improper legislative interference with the executive administration of the budget, as well as limitations on the executive ignoring or contradicting appropriate legislative major budgetary determinations.   The City Attorney’s Office memorandum of February 10, 2012 discusses in detail the 3 major rulings by the Supreme Court in the past 30 years and similar rulings by other State Supreme Courts, describes the proper roles of Council and the Mayor under our City Charter, and provides clear guidance to Council and the Mayor on both the 2012 Budget Ordinance and on future budget cycles.

It is worth pointing out that the Mayor decided in early 2012 to adopt a conciliatory and collaborative approach in the 2012 Budget, and agreed to implement the Council veto override budget requests.  This was despite the fact that at least 2 of those veto overrides (the additional code enforcement officer and the tennis court maintenance directives) were under the City Charter and Colorado law an inappropriate legislative interference with the executive administration of city departments.  It is important to understand that in light of the Mayor’s decision to implement the Council veto override requests, there is currently no “injury” to either Mayor or Council that requires further action, and no requirement that further City time or resources be expended on this question.  The City Attorney’s Opinion on the appropriations in the 2012 Budget is an “advisory opinion” to clarify for Council and Mayor their proper roles in the budget process, based on the actions in the 2012 Budget.  The City Attorney’s opinion is also provided as “guidance”, to help both the Mayor and Council navigate future budget cycles, and was completed at the request of both Council and Mayor for this purpose.

The City Attorney’s Office memorandum states that Council overstepped their lawful authority under the Charter in the 2012 Budget and sought to exert power they did not properly possess — it was not the Mayor impermissibly seeking new budget powers.  The heart of the issue was whether Council could seek to instruct the Mayor how many employees to hire for code enforcement, and seek to instruct the Mayor how to use the “Parks and Rec” budget funds, in this case on tennis court maintenance.  The Colorado Supreme Court in 3 landmark decisions has stated that decisions on staffing and decisions on allocation of budget resources are central to the executive role, and generally are not appropriate matters for legislative direction.  The veto over-ride or the supermajority vote by Council in December 2011 was certainly a significant fact, and when taken in support of a proper legislative action would of course be binding on the Mayor.  But a veto override cannot in and of itself overcome a violation of the Charter (our City constitution).   In such a case, the veto override is not the critical factor, the critical factor is whether the Council has taken action outside their lawful role and overstepped their bounds as defined under the Charter.  If so, the Council veto override is invalid and the Mayor’s veto would stand.

In our conversations with outside experts, both outside attorneys and political experts, the consensus view strongly advised that conflicts between the legislative and the executive branches on appropriations and budget questions are best resolved through the political process — through dialogue, through compromise and collaboration, or through the election process when differences cannot be resolved.  The legal process is a last resort, and is often very expensive and very inefficient – particularly when the answer is already clear.  Most of the Colorado Supreme Court decisions on these issues took many years to resolve, and left the affected citizens and the government agencies in limbo and uncertainty for long periods of time before clarity was obtained.  The existing Supreme Court opinions are well established as the clear direction from the State’s highest court.

Two of the attorneys in the City Attorney’s Office that worked on this opinion (Wynetta Massey, Pat McDivitt) have a combined experience as municipal law attorneys working for the City of over 35 years (they reported to Council for virtually all that time, prior to the Charter change).  I was personally involved in developing and writing this opinion, carefully reviewed every case, and discussed the issues with numerous individuals before rendering our opinion.  I have over 25 years experience in legal practice, including 5 years as a federal prosecutor, over 10 years as a general counsel or senior executive to public and private businesses, and over 5 years as general counsel to nonprofit organizations (JD Yale Law School 1986, BA Carleton College 1982).

The outside attorneys and outside experts consulted by the City Attorney’s Office include the following:

  1. John Cook, Managing Partner Colorado Springs, Hogan Lovells
  2. Cole Finegan, Managing Partner Denver, Hogan Lovells (former Denver City Attorney)
  3. Chantell Taylor, Attorney, Hogan Lovells
  4. Doug Friednash, Denver City Attorney (current)
  5. Adrian Kwiatkowski, President, Strong Mayor-Council Institute
  6. Robert Loevy, Professor Emeritus, Colorado College (Ph.D. in Political Science, tenured professor for over 40 years; numerous publications, paper, and awards during career; appointed by the Governor as a member of the Colorado State Redistricting Commission 2011; recognized national expert and public commentator on issues of government and politics)
  7. International Municipal Lawyers Association (national association for city attorneys and municipal law practitioners)

I hope this information is helpful.  Thank you,

Christopher J. Melcher

City Attorney/Chief Legal Officer

Posted in: City Administration • City Council • Lawsuit • Politics • • • | 8 Comments »

Bach quizzed about Terri Velasquez, Lisa Bigelow

February 16th, 2012, 5:07 pm by

More video from Tuesday’s press conference:

YouTube Preview Image

Posted in: City Administration • City employees • Lawsuit • • • • | 4 Comments »

Velasquez still hopes situation can be resolved in ‘amicable fashion’

August 30th, 2011, 3:13 pm by

The law firm of Frank & Finger, P.C., which is representing fired city employee Terri Velasquez, issued a statement a few minutes ago after receiving “numerous inquiries” from the news media.

“Ms. Velasquez believes that the best way to respond to these inquiries is by issuing a press statement.”

Here’s part of the statement:

“There is still a hope by Ms. Velasquez that her situation can be resolved in an amicable fashion. In the past, Ms. Velasquez, through her lawyers, has invited the City to meet and resolve her situation. The invitation to meet has never been accepted. Ms Velasquez wants the City to know that the invitation to meet and resolve her situation is still open. She hopes that the City now understands that her claims are legitimate and need to be fairly and appropriately addressed. This would include reinstating Ms. Velasquez to her former position with the City, or alternatively, offering her an equivalent position to what she previously held.”

Posted in: City employees • Lawsuit • | 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries